I don’t know much about it but I assume it would be any texts white washing history. As an example I grew up in the south and learned about John Brown and Harriet Tubman with basically facts that can be regurgitated. Nothing diving into the day-to-day hardships and anything sounding too sympathetic.
The rationale for the civil war was white washed to “state’s rights” and specifically “slavery wasn’t the major cause”. For 'what" state’s rights obviously due to economic ones because the north was purposely attempting to keep the south down.
Another example was that slaves had a better life as slaves and many came back! The ‘silent racism’ of the North was even worse than the South’s violent racism because in the South they could live (in slavery) while on the North they will be destitute and invisible.
The point being, if it’s attempting to redo that, then it is the overall message and subtext of the curriculum.
nomy@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
He might’ve been mentioned once in a class but we definitely didn’t learn much of anything. Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation was of course covered a dozen times. Granted this was decades ago in the 90s.
For context, I’m in the Midwest and had an 8th grade history teacher/football coach tell us black people had an extra bone in their leg and it made them good at sports. That guy (a beloved teacher) was elected to the school board about 5 years ago. They’re definitely out there and they definitely have some backwards views.
mergingapples@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Yeahhhh that’s definitely more than a little fucked